Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1280 (JHR)

Sushil Kumar Banka, son of Babulal Banka v. Vijay Kumar Maheshwari @ Chitlangia, son of late Girish Lal Chitlangia

2018-06-20

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2018
ORDER : Parties have been validly served. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 16.09.2016 passed in J.B.C. Case No.43 of 2016 by which leave to defend has been granted to the defendant. 3. Plea raised by the petitioner is that under section 21(4) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011 read with Article 118 of the Limitation Act, an application seeking leave to defend must be filed within 10 days of service of summons upon the defendant. The petitioner has asserted that summons was issued on 02.06.2016, which was served upon the defendant on 03.06.2016, however, he has filed an application seeking leave to defend on 17.08.2016. 4. The respondents have filed a counter-affidavit disputing that on 03.06.2016 they were served summons in J.B.C. Case No.43 of 2016. 5. Mr. Rahul Saboo, the learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection on maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that against the impugned order dated 16.09.2016, the petitioner has a remedy of statutory appeal under section 36 of 2011 Act. However, Mr. Shashank Shekhar, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order dated 16.09.2016 is wholly without jurisdiction and, therefore, a writ petition shall lie against such an order. 6. Whether the impugned order dated 16.09.2016 passed in J.B.C. Case No.43 of 2016 is without jurisdiction or not would primarily depend on two facts; when summons was served upon the defendants and the date of application seeking leave to defend. All these issues can be decided by the appellate authority on examination of record of the case. Under section 36 of Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011 the appellate authority has powers to make further enquiry in the matter. 7. In the above facts, in view of an efficacious remedy of statutory appeal under section 36 of the Act, this writ petition is held not maintainable, however, a liberty is granted to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order dated 16.09.2016, within a period of four weeks. 8. The writ petition stands disposed of.